Monday, May 18, 2009
Health for us or for business?
In this discussion forum we want to talk about public health and drug distribution. Should life saving drugs be free for all? What reflections can we make following recent global health issues such as swine flu? Why is it so hard to make drugs available for all (i.e. Aids drugs for Africa)? Is this an economic or ethical issue for our society?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Drugs for free: PharmacEthical issue
We find three main points of view about these issues:
- Pharmaceutical companies claim that is necessary invest a lot of money to research and develop new drugs. And for this reason the drug's price rises.
- Poor countries don't have enought money to buy essential vaccines and drugs to fight devasting desease such as Tuberculosis, Malaria and AIDS. So they ask for a reduction of drug costs. We find that there are some organizations that help them for procuring medications. An example is "The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis an Malaria".
- According to a radical group of people drugs shouldn't be free because they don't care people and they have negative effects on the human health.
Andrea, Alice, Mariagrazia
In 2007 an estimated 500.000 people had multidrug resistant TB togheter with AIDS, and this is mortal combination that kills the 90% of people in a few months. This is only an example of pandemic but it could be a point of start to show the position of the main actors of problems like this. The WHO, in 2003, suggested increasing the access to ATD cocktail for TB with a cost of only $200 per person for the entire 6-8 months period of treatment, including health service and staff costs. The way to fight situations like this is, for the WHO, the strong application of the DOTS: this program consists of 5 points that are political commitment with financing, quality-assured instruments for case detection, standardized treatments, effective drug supply and monitoring and evaluation systems.
"Medecins Sans Frontieres", which is an association fighting all the disease especially in developing countries, started a campaign for access to essential medicines for all over the world. Its opinion is that the negotiation to boost supply and to reduce prices with the current drug manufacturers won't solve the problem; the WHO needs to take actions to increase generic drug supply for the treatments that it is recommending.
On their side, companies like Roche and Bayer, joined some programs to fight AIDS in poor countries but it seems a face-saving policy.
Francesco (x2), Claudio, Monica
The most important obstacle to universal health care are drug patents.
Oxfam International, a confederation working around the world to end poverty and injustice, has accused the global pharmaceutical industry and western governments of waging what it calls an undeclared drugs war against the world's poorest countries.
The organisation says developing countries must be allowed to make cheap copies of drugs to treat diseases such as Aids, respiratory tract infections and childhood diarrhoea.
Oxfam has also called on the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to change patent rules which result in restricted access to life-saving drugs. Under normal WTO rules, companies can patent drugs for 20 years.
Oxfam wants one of the world's largest drug companies, GlaxoSmithKline, to drop legal action against countries that are producing cheaper drugs.
GlaxoSmithKline said Oxfam did not appreciate the complexities of the problem, which required a shared responsibility by governments, NGOs, the World Bank and the UN.
The company also said that the group had ignored its work in developing countries, including initiatives to reduce the prices of HIV-related drugs.
Another problem is about the network distribution of drugs. It seems that drugs can't reach the poorest countries, but if you travel to the most remote parts of Africa you can usually get a cola or something similar! So distribution isn't rocket science!
Ilaria, Elena, Elisa
Post a Comment